High Court Limits Whistleblower Lawsuits - Forbes.com

~~~ This ruling disappoints me.
A close loss at 5-4 too.

Last year it could been 5-4 the other way.
( Or even 6-3 -- as Rehnquist was a bit of a maverick on free speech ) .

Welcome to the Roberts & Alito court . ~~~ tp

===================

High Court Limits Whistleblower Lawsuits - Forbes.com: "
Associated Press
"High Court Limits Whistleblower Lawsuits"
By GINA HOLLAND , 05.30.2006, 11:12 AM

"The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it harder for government employees to file lawsuits claiming they were retaliated against for going public with allegations of official misconduct.

By a 5-4 vote, justices said the nation's 20 million public employees do not have carte blanche free speech rights to disclose government's inner-workings. New Justice Samuel Alito cast the tie-breaking vote"

Alito Often Ruled for Religious Expression - N Y Times

Alito Often Ruled for Religious Expression - New York Times: "Nathan J. Diament, the public affairs director for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, said Judge Alito's record demonstrated 'a deep understanding' of the Free Exercise Clause. Mr. Diament mentioned Judge Alito's concurrence in a ruling allowing a Jewish teacher at William Paterson College in New Jersey to go forward with a lawsuit accusing the school administration of trying to force her out by scheduling events on Friday evenings. 'He didn't just agree that the suit should go forward,' Mr. Diament said. 'He went out of his way to express his philosophy on the need to accommodate religious individuals.'"

November 8, 2005

Justices Back Paying Workers as They Suit Up

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 1:53 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that companies must pay plant workers for the time it takes to change into protective clothing and safety gear and walk to their work stations.

The issue was one of two that justices settled in a pair of unanimous decisions, the first rulings under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts in the new fall term. Roberts did not write either one.

In a defeat for business, the court said that employers must pay wages for the donning of ''integral'' gear and the time it takes workers to then walk to the production area.

The court, in a ruling by Justice John Paul Stevens, upheld a decision of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of workers at a meat processing plant in Pasco, Wash. Those workers typically put on sanitary outer garments, boots, hardhats, aprons and gloves.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Scotus-Protective-Gear.html?hp&ex=1131512400&en=31fdf239ce7f8501&ei=5094&partner=homepage

A Federal Court Rules that the First Amendment to the US constitution, means that no authority can restrict the flow of ANY information to any citizen

~~ A Federal Court Rules that the First Amendment to the US constitution, means that no authority can restrict the flow of ANY information to any citizen, even if that citizen be in jail. I think that is very good. ~~ tp

Guess Who WANTS Junk Mail?
Wed Feb 2, 2005 10:08 AM ET

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Some Americans might think of junk mail as cruel and unusual punishment, but a U.S. appeals court ruled on Tuesday that prison officials may not stop bulk mail and catalogs from reaching prisoners.

The case stems from a lawsuit against Washington state's Department of Corrections, which had barred its inmates from receiving such mailed materials.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling and rejected arguments that banning bulk mail makes it easier to run a prison and reduces the risk of fire.

"Publishers have a First Amendment right to communicate with prisoners by mail, and inmates have a First Amendment right to receive this mail," Arthur Alarcon wrote for the three-judge panel.

The "ban on non-subscription bulk mail and catalogs is not rationally related to a legitimate penological interest and is therefore unconstitutional," he added.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++